LR22-31

Appeal · other. Outcome: dismissed. The appeal is dismissed and Director’s Order LD22-151 is confirmed. The Issue Did the Director err in finding that, (a) there was a rental agreement between Mr. Ford and Mr. MacPherson and, (b) that Mr. MacPherson was entitled to a return of the security deposit?

Linked prior order: LD22-151

Order text

Docket LR22038 – Karl Ford v. Alex MacPherson Tuesday, June 21, 2022 Docket: LR22038
Order: LR22-31
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON Tuesday, June 21, 2022.
Panel Chair - Erin T. Mitchell, Commissioner
M. Douglas Clow, Vice-Chair
Hearing Date: Friday, June 17, 2022
ORDER
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of Residential Property Act (the “Act”), filed by Karl Ford against Order LD22-151
issued by the Director of Residential Rental
Property and dated May 19, 2022.
Compared and Certified a True Copy
(Sgd.) Susan Jefferson Commission Administrator Corporate Services and Appeals

Order of The Prince Edward Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Order LR22-31 - Page 2 Docket LR22038 – Karl Ford v. Alex MacPherson Tuesday, June 21, 2022 This appeal asks whether there is a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether the tenant is entitled to a return of a security deposit.
Background
Karl Ford (“Mr. Ford”), rented Apartment 2 at 645 Crooked Creek Road, Oyster Bed Bridge, PE (the “Premises”), to Alex MacPherson (“Mr. MacPherson”) for a gentleman named Henry, who at the time was an employee of Mr. MacPherson. Rent was $685 per month and due on the first day of the month. A security deposit was paid by Mr.
MacPherson.
Mr. Ford seeks to keep the full balance of the security deposit for damages and cleaning.
Mr. MacPherson wants the security deposit returned. Both parties filed applications with the Office of the Director of Residential Rental Property (the “Director”) seeking the security deposit.
In Order LD22-151, the Director found that Mr. MacPherson was entitled to retain the security deposit in the amount of $696.
Mr. Ford appealed.
The Commission heard the appeal by way of telephone conference call on June 17, 2022.
Both Mr. Ford and Mr. MacPherson participated.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed and Director’s Order LD22-151 is confirmed.
The Issue Did the Director err in finding that, (a) there was a rental agreement between Mr. Ford and Mr. MacPherson and, (b) that Mr. MacPherson was entitled to a return of the security deposit?
Analysis
Mr. Ford’s claim against the security deposit was based on his evidence that the Premises were not clean and in good repair when Henry moved out, and that he incurred costs to clean and make repairs.
Mr. MacPherson stated that he did not receive notice that the rental agreement was being terminated and thus had no opportunity to clean, make repairs and arrange for a new subtenant to move in.
The Commission finds that the rental agreement was between Mr. Ford and Mr.
MacPherson and Henry would occupy the Premises as a sub-tenant. When Henry informed Mr. Ford he was going to leave, Mr. Ford should have communicated with Mr.
MacPherson. Mr. Ford acknowledged that he did not have any discussions with Mr.
MacPherson when he learned Henry would be vacating the Premises.

Order of The Prince Edward Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Order LR22-31 - Page 3 Docket LR22038 – Karl Ford v. Alex MacPherson Tuesday, June 21, 2022 Instead, Mr. Ford acted as if Henry was the tenant, rather than the sub-tenant. Mr.
MacPherson thus had no opportunity to ensure the Premises were clean, in good repair and move in a new worker as a new sub-tenant.
The Commission agrees with the findings of the Director and confirms Order LD22-151.
Mr. MacPherson is entitled to the return of the security deposit.
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act and the Rental of Residential Property Act;
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Director’s Order LD22-151 is confirmed.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Tuesday, June 21, 2022.
BY THE COMMISSION:
(sgd. Erin T. Mitchell)

Erin T. Mitchell, Commissioner
(sgd. M. Douglas Clow)

M. Douglas Clow, Vice-Chair
NOTICE
Subsections 26(2), 26(3), 26(4) and 26(5) of the Rental of Residential Property Act provides as follows:
26. (2) A lessor or lessee may, within fifteen days of the
decision of the Commission, appeal to the court on a question of law only.
(3) The rules of court governing appeals apply to an appeal under subsection (2).
(4) Where the Commission has confirmed, reversed, or varied an order of the Director and no appeal has been taken within the time specified in subsection (2), the lessor or lessee may file the order in the court.
(5) Where an order is filed pursuant to subsection (4), it may be enforced as if it were an order of the court.